A teacher dismissed after a wrist injury lost her Fair Work disability claim. The Court found the school acted because she could not meet the inherent requirements of her role, and held the Fair Work Act exception does not import the reasonable adjustments test in disability discrimination law.

A law professor says she has sued Adelaide University in the Federal Court over her workplace rights to academic freedom and free speech. Nothing is proven and the university has not yet responded in court. We explain the claims and the law, including the High Court's Ridd decision.

Lawyers in a forced adoption negligence claim asked the Court to delay judgment so they could chase documents it had already refused. The Court found that an abuse of process and ordered the plaintiff's solicitors personally to pay both defendants' costs of that application, on an indemnity basis.

Two 17-year-olds were sentenced for murdering a 14-year-old boy. KA, who pleaded guilty and showed remorse, received 17 years (12.5 non-parole). DM, convicted at trial, received 18.5 years (14 non-parole). The Court explains how parity, youth and the plea discount shaped the sentences.

A customer suing her bank over a $6.2m term deposit scam must amend her negligence claim before getting the bank's internal scam procedures on discovery. The NSW Supreme Court said the claim relied on hindsight. No finding has been made that the bank is liable.

A 3:2 High Court held that a NSW coal mine extension approval was invalid because the Commission never considered conditions to minimise Scope 3 emissions, 98% of the project's emissions. The duty was to consider such conditions, not to impose them.

Related creditors voted down a government-funded deal for liquidators to investigate possible claims. About ten months later the liquidators sought court approval, and the Victorian Supreme Court granted it retrospectively, finding a reasonable basis and no prejudice to creditors.

A contractor garnisheed nearly $279,000 from a developer under a security of payment judgment while a stay application was pending in the ACT. The NSW Supreme Court froze the money for just days until a contested hearing, finding an arguable, though not strong, abuse case.

The WA Supreme Court halved a $182,000 fine for storing asbestos-affected building waste on rural land without planning approval. The breach was careless, not flagrant, and with an early plea, no priors and a clean-up, the company was resentenced to $90,000.

The High Court held that jurors who swore their separation oath on day one were still bound by it when sent home during deliberations, so there was no error or irregularity at the trial. The ordered retrial was set aside and the conviction restored.

Queensland’s Civil and Administrative Tribunal has not yet decided whether COVID-19 vaccine mandates unlawfully discriminated against Jayden Beale. What it has decided is more revealing. In June 2026, Member Wilson refused the State’s sixth attempt to throw the case out. The State’s argument was not merely that the mandates were justified. It was that a Christian’s own reading of Scripture is not, without more, a “religious belief” the law will protect. That claim deserves close attention. If accepted at trial, it would change how Queensland treats conscience, churches, and the individual believer. If rejected, it would reaffirm a principle Australian courts have stated for eighty years: the State does not get to write the catechism.

Parliament has just handed the Executive a new weapon: a “middle-tier” proscription regime that can ban organisations by regulation, criminalise ordinary proximity to those organisations, and turn immigration decisions into a “might”-based purge—all while quietly switching off procedural fairness at the front end. This isn’t a laser. It’s a net. And the net is designed to catch people who think they’re nowhere near “extremism”.